.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, May 12, 2006

Wiretap Schmiretap: Part 1

A Washington Post-ABC Poll - a poll that Liberals LOVE TO QUOTE when it supports their propaganda, shows 63% of Americans DON'T CARE if the NSA is using "wiretapping" in the War on Terror. The poll also found that 44% endorse methods of surveillance for thwarting terrorism! I wonder if the Socialists will be quoting this poll ad naseum as they usually are fond of doing when it is a poll taken about President Bush's dropping approval numbers.
- - -
Well, the Commiecrats momentum moves once gain into the Arena of Grandstanding on the National Security Agency surveillance program. Senators Patrick Leahy, Diane Whinestein, Cluck Schumer, John Kerry (who, in case you are not aware of it, served in Vietnam), Barbara Boxer and Dick "Turban" Durbin (who, in case you are not aware of it compared our fine men and women in the military to Nazis), all took advantage yesterday of their moment to downplay national security and replace it with their rank politicking.

What if there are Americans in cahoots with Al-Qaeda? Should we not make any effort to find this out? What if there had been "wiretapping" of Timothy McVey prior to the Oklahoma City bombing? What if that "wiretapping" would have enabled authorities to act before the Murrah Building was blown up?

Is the Left trying to tell us that no American can possibly be working with Al-Qaeda? Is the Left trying to tell us that not one American could be bribed a large enough sum of money, or be blackmailed - say, the lives of their children or family threatened - to cooperate with Al-Qaeda? Is the Left trying to tell us that no American is capable of conspiring with the enemy? Because that is what the Left is saying with the messages they are sending by their protestations on surveillance.

When, in the minds of the Liberals, is surveillance or "wiretapping" okay? Was it okay to use it against Vincent "The Chin" Gigante? Is it okay to use when trying to apprehend a suspected serial killer? Is "wiretapping" okay when trying to arrest a child sex offender?

What about when trying to arrest a child sex offender when that person is communicating with what they think is an underage child via the computer, but the person on the other side of the computer isn't a child but an adult law enforcement individual? Is it wrong to arrest the offender because the designed scenario is a law enforcement individual posing as a child in order to apprehend the offender?

So here we have the Commiecrats grandstanding that the NSA is "spying on" people. The NSA says no, what they are doing is intelligence gathering, maybe similar to all those FBI files that somehow found their way into Bill and MrsSatan's grubby little fingers? Perhaps similar to the Clinton Era of Echelon? Funny - no outcry then from these same Liberals on those programs. Hmmmmm...Hmmmmm-can we together all say Political Agenda?

So the NSA gathers information en masse, perhaps similar to that of Echelon - of which nary a peep was heard from the same Lefty crowd now climbing atop their soapbox to grandstand - and suddenly the Left is concerned about privacy.

Isn't this the same party that has no problem with random road checks, violating the 4th Amendment by infringing on the right of people to be free of unreasonable searches, simply to check ALL drivers with the hope of finding one or two that are inebriated?

Democrats operate a lot like Terrorists. Terrorists only have to be right once in committing an act of terror. Democrats only have to be right once in their fully automatic, rapid fire manufactured allegations of false political criticism, hoping that one of those allegations eventually stick. The NSA and the President have to be right all the time when being put on the defensive by, and protecting us from, terrorists OR democrats.

Face it; the democrats want to set up a scenario where the President can never be correct. If neither the NSA nor Bush moves to promote intelligence gathering and we once again experience an attack, the Left can play their rhetoric card by saying "why weren't you doing more."

If the NSA or Bush take steps to insure our safety and we don't experience an attack, the Left can play their other rhetoric card by saying "what you're doing is illegal."

The Left has set themselves up to be able to play it both ways and play not only to their political base, but also to those conservatives who, by making the mistake of listening to the Left, begin to believe that what the Left says is accurate.

The Left is playing politics with our safety! They are doing so only because they think it will help them in their political careers and because they hope their rhetoric will help return them to a political majority.

P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. Only today it applies to the Rope A Dope Crowd which is comprised of the democrats, faux conservatives critical of Bush, the Main Stream Media, AirHead America personalities, their listeners and the Insane Liberal Clown Posse of the country and the Blogosphere.

Don't you Dopes get tired of being Roped? Again and again the Bush Administration or the Republican majority does something that gets your panties all in a bundle. And when the truth is told, we learn that not only is whatever you accuse Bush and Company of doing something that happened before, but more often than not it was approved by, used by and sanctioned by the same Commiecrats that are voicing their opposition to it today!

How does feel to be a Dope that is Roped every time? Are you proud of being a Dope? Fool you once shame on me? Hardly. You're a bunch of idiots that can be fooled all the time.

If you are gullible enough to believe the democrats, then may God, Allah or whatever deity you worship have mercy on your political soul. And the democrats are hoping that not only what Barnum said is true, but that it is YOU who is the sucker.

©2006


Sources:
The Weekly Standard: Breaking The Durbin Code by Hugh Hewitt
Vincent Gigante: Court TV - Crime Library
Vincent Gigante: Wikipedia
Clintons Still Haunted By FBI Scandal by Robert Novak, Sun-Times,via Free Republic
The Clinton Scandals
Wikipedia: Echelon
Echelon Watch.org
Echelon: America's Secret Global Surveillance Network

Comments:
Covert surveillance is used when apprehending someone-say, a sex offender- communicating via the computer with a law enforcement person posing as an underage victim. It's not at all off topic. The issue is the covert surveillance. The point made is no one seems to be up in arms that this type of surveillance is used in cases like that, but seem to be up in arms when trying to determine if we have terrorists within our country talking to other terrorists, whether they reside within the U.S. or abroad.

As far as your ramblings on needed a warrant, "[otherwise] surveillance is ILLEGAL", you COULDN'T BE MORE
W R O N G.

Check out the post above, Wiretapping Part 2 and the following law signed by, I'm guessing, your big buddy, EX-prez BubbaCheese:

The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier."

Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.


See, "Luke"...that means that there's more than just one type of authorization available. That pretty much deflates your feeble attempt at trying to make a point, doesn't it?

You don't do well at reading; do you "Luke", because you apparently missed the first paragraph in the post:

[The] Washington Post-ABC Poll - a poll that Liberals LOVE TO QUOTE when it supports their propaganda, shows 63% of Americans DON'T CARE if the NSA is using "wiretapping" in the War on Terror.

I guess that deflates the last sentence in your comment, because it is completely contrary to what you write. The whole world is laughing at you, "Luke", because you only read what you care to believe.

By the way, if you bothered to read anything other than what you want to read, I'm an independent and (small "L") libertarian.

Nice fake blog site you have there, "Luke". Hey, next time why don't you just use "anonymous" and I will know that it's you.

Come back and comment at some point in the future, "Luke" but please, stop talking out of your ass. Try and have some facts next time instead of the talking out of your ass or the talking points you get from Airhead America Radio.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker



Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.